On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:57:26 +0000, Patrick Welche wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:08:55PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > Here is a patch which corrects several problems with the way the Autoconf > > CVS version of AS_SHELL_SANITIZE attempts to locate a usable shell. The > > patch address the following issues. > Is there any chance this patch could be applied, and the cvs files > it affects updated? Without it I just get the traditional "Found > no shell that has working shell functions." which isn't right > on NetBSD-current/i386. With it, life is better, but I still get > that message from tools (like autom4te) which where expanded from > the old macros. I got stuck after a maintainer-clean trying to > rebuild those files... a bit of a chicken and egg situtation. We have been having a discussion on autoconf-patches about a different patch submitted by Paolo Bonzini which also addresses this issue, and which provides a more generic mechanism for performing feature tests. In the long run, the generic mechanism will be more appropriate. Upon reviewing Paolo's patch, however, I discovered a number of problems with it (some of which are fatal); but we are hoping that he can amend his patch to correct these problems, and that the patch can then be installed. Since Paolo's patch provides a better solution for the future, I suggested that it would make more sense to ignore my patch and go with Paolo's instead. At this point, we are awaiting a revised patch from Paolo. As an interim solution, can you install Autoconf 2.59 in order to get our of your chicken-and-egg problem? Alternately, perhaps my patch can be committed temporarily (and those generated files, such as autom4te.in, can corrected); at least until Paolo's revised patch becomes available. Unfortunately, it seems that the GNU mailing list software has sent our entire discussion on autoconf-patches to /dev/null (as it so often does), so it has not been seen by anyone not included via cc:. At first I thought that the autoconf-patches list was simply down, but a message to the list in a different thread did arrive on the list today, so I am now assuming that our entire discussion is probably gone for good. -- ES
